The interpretation of Sections 2(f), 2(g), 3, and 4(9) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act in the context of a joint Hindu family property and the calculation of vacant land.

( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions have been preferred by the State of U. P. against the judgment of the district Judge. Varanasl passed in Ceiling appeals Nos. 45 of 1979. 455 of 1979 and 12 of 1980.

( 2 ) GYAN Das and his two sons, Sri Kumar Agrawal and Vinod Kumar Agrawal filed separate statements under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After survey, the draft statements were served under Section 8 (3 ). Against the draft statements, four objections were filed. These objections were by Gyan Das, Sri kumar Agrawal and Vinod Kumar Agrawal and Pravin Kumar, minor son of Gyan Das. The main objection of Gyan Das was that the entire property was the joint Hindu family property consisting of Gyan Das, and his aforesaid three sons and, as such, each one of the members had one fourth share. Similar objections were filed by his sons Vinod Kumar, Sri Kumar and Pravin kumar (minor ).

( 3 ) THE Competent Authority consolidated all the cases and proceed to decide them by a common judgment. The case of Gyan Das was made the leading case.

( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding with the points arising for decision in this writ petition it may be noted that the only property involved in the case is house No. D. 63/10, Mahmoor Ganj, Varanasi City which was bounded by boundary walls on all the four sides and the total area of which is 13192 sq. metres. Out of this total area, the covered area is 2302. 64 Sq. metres, The details of the building have been mentioned in the judgment of the Competent Authority.

( 5 ) THE Competent Authority heidlhat the property aforesaid was a joint Hindu family property and the share of Gyan Das was one half being that of his own and his minor son Pravin Kumar and out of the remaining half, one fourth belonged to Vinod Kumar and the remaining one fourth to Sri Kumar. The Competent Authority also declared 712. 41 sq. metres of the premises D. 63/10 moorganj as surplus of each one of the four. Against this judgment of the Competent Authority, three appeals were preferred. The appeals were allowed by the District Judge on 19-3-1980 on the view of Section 4 (9) made in State of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1978 All LJ 1222. Against the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petitions have been filed.

( 6 ) THE first question that arises for consideration is about the land held by each one of the members of the joint Hindu family aforesaid. This was not disputed before me that the property in question was the joint Hindu family property. It has been noted above that the joint family consists of Gyan Das, and his three sons whose names have also been given. Out of the three sons, one of them was minor. The Competent Authority has found the share of each one of the four persons to be one fourth. It is here that the question arises whether the minor could also have a share independently for himself.

( 7 ) SECTION 2 (i) of the Act defines "person" as : " "person" includesan individual, a family, a firm, a company, or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. " "family" is also given an artificial meaning by treating it as a person. This term "family" is quoted below : "family" in relation to a person means the individual the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual and their unmarried minor children. "

( 8 ) SECTION 3 of the Act provides that no person except as otherwise provided in this Act. on and from the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the terrilories to which this Act applies under Sub-section (2) of Section 1.

( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, a person will also not be entitled to hold in excess of the ceiling limit. The person includes in the case of a male, his wife and his minor children. From this definition, it is clear that the joint Hindu family is excluded from the purview of the Act. Since under Section 3, no person is entitled to hold any vacant land i